Traffic Cameras (Farmington: deed, maintenance, living)

[Minathebrat]

Has your city or town resorted to putting up Traffic Cameras at certain intersections? Has it been helpful to the community or improved traffic flow/accidents? Do you approve of traffic cameras?

[GregW]

I conditionally approve of traffic cameras only if they are used at intersections with a history of accidents caused by traffic violations and the cameras are owned by the municipality. These cameras supposedly increase public safety by discouraging running red lights and can be justified on this basis. Private ownership cannot be justified because the timers can be set in a manner that fines non-violators and in order to increase company profit. These machines must not be used for city revenue but for safety.

[6 FOOT 3]

I believe they are only in albuquerque and las cruces.

[Minathebrat]

The Farmington City Council was considering the measure as part of traffic control.

They "negatives" are that they are expensive, tens of thousands to install per camera, and then you have to pay for the maintenance as that is usually farmed out to a third-party. There are judges that are overturning their tickets, because in this country you have the right to face your accuser, which can't be done with a camera. There's also statistical evidence that cameras cause rear-end fender-benders.

Though Greg, I wasn't aware that they could be owned by the municipality. That was a huge negative in my opinion. Third-party non-law enforcement companies don't have the authority to ticket citizens.

The "benefits" are increased revenue for the city, at least at first, and statistics also say it decreases T-bones, and brings down speed.
Though there are cities that are disabling their cameras in many places because they are no longer generating the revenue to fund their own maintenance, as citizens become "aware" and approach those lights warily.
Anyway, in a recession, I'm not sure that expensive cameras of which their contributions to safe traffic are questionable, but that dip into the pockets of the citizenry is unquestioned.

There is a group that maintains that they can reduce traffic problems better than cameras with proper light timing, etc, and offers any community $10,000 if they can prove that cameras are more effective than their practices, which I found intriguing.

[GregW]

If drivers simply pay more attention because they notice the cameras I would say that is an improvement. Around here the problem is folks running the left turn lights because they know that stopping will cost then a huge couple of minutes. When I am starting to go straight ahead at a light I wait a couple of extra seconds to make certain crossing traffic has cleared.

Financing these things is somehow beyond many municipal budgets so private companies are will to do the deed for half the fines (typical). I wonder how the private sector can make money on half the fines while the municipality cannot on all the fines. I sense a rip-off in this deal. Besides I do not want any police functions turned over to mercenaries.

[GOPATTA2D]

Originally Posted by GregW

I conditionally approve of traffic cameras only if they are used at intersections with a history of accidents caused by traffic violations and the cameras are owned by the municipality. These cameras supposedly increase public safety by discouraging running red lights and can be justified on this basis. Private ownership cannot be justified because the timers can be set in a manner that fines non-violators and in order to increase company profit. These machines must not be used for city revenue but for safety.

At the risk of offending you, you sound more and more logical each day.

[Minathebrat]

Yes, I also think that keeping the lights timed correctly has alot to do with it. Being in NY, Greg, I know what you're saying about the left-hand turns. However, my experience in living out west is that they don't really have that problem. Most places I've been have left-hand turn lanes, and nice, wide roads. Beautiful roads. Roads that I can't understand why the traffic is as bad as it is, because they're infinitely better than NY roads with a fraction of the traffic..but that's another rant. lol Needless to say, they don't have roads that were paved-over trails from the 1600's, or highway infrastructure that was planned for cars that went 40mph. lol

I don't like Redflex Traffic Systems tho...

[Minathebrat]

Remembered what that group is that I was talking about. The National Motorists Association. The National Motorists Association Website
They claim programming yellow lights to be longer than just one second is more effective than traffic cameras, and that traffic cameras only reward cities for poor engineering! lol Found that amusing.

Redflex Traffic Systems is an Australian company, and they have over 40% of the camera market in the US right now. In AZ phoenix metro area, the fine is $180 for running a light- they get $40 of it. Sounds profitable.

Good Article..and scary. Called "6 cites that were caught shortening the yellow light times for profit"
http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-citi...es-for-profit/

[sjbasin]

Ya gotta love the teens these days...

Maryland teens have discovered that Montgomery County’s cameras can’t distinguish between real license plates and laser-printed ones. So kids are making up fake versions of their enemies’ plates, pasting them over their own plates and speeding past the cameras.

The “Speed Pimping Game” gets the other person a $40 citation. And parents are upset, The Montgomery County Sentinel reports:

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4236

[Zoidberg]

Darn. I had that idea too but never acted on it. Was going to find out the mayor's plate number first though.